Medical research has demonstrated the importance of maintaining adequate hydration to maintain a person's physical and mental health. Serious consequences can occur due to the lack of proper hydration. These consequences can range in severity from fatigue and nausea to loss of consciousness and even death. To maintain optimum health, physicians generally recommend that under normal conditions individuals drink at least eight 8 ounce (240 ml) glasses of water a day (for a total of a gallon of water per day). When an individual is under physical exertion, exposed to extreme environmental conditions, and/or over weight, the amount of fluids that the individual needs to consume generally increases because the individual's rate of fluid loss increases under such circumstances. Thus, regardless of whether a person is exercising, working, or simply resting, maintaining proper hydration and peak performance (both physical and mental) requires the regular ingestion of fluids, which in turn requires the availability of fluids to ingest.
Various portable devices have been developed to help address the availability problem. These devices have included, for example, aluminum canteens and plastic water bottles. While these devices are reasonably light, durable and inexpensive, they do not allow hands-free fluid consumption, which may be desirable or even extremely important in some applications. In addition, they are often awkwardly mounted to a waist belt or in a pocket of a backpack, making the process of accessing them during certain activities impractical and even unsafe. As a result, individuals using these types of portable devices often go without fluids longer than they should. Frequently, this is because the user has to wait for a suitable break in their activity before safely reaching for the water bottle or canteen. Because of the inconvenience and/or safety issues, individuals using these types of devices also often wait until they feel thirsty before finding a suitable break in whatever activity they are engaged to have a drink. The problem with this approach, however, is that by the time a person is thirsty, they are already dehydrated and thus their body is no longer at optimal performance. In addition, if an individual waits too long to properly hydrate, their body can begin to cramp, causing pain and a further reduction in the individual's ability to engage in physical activity. Moreover, the recovery from dehydration does not take place simply with an individual's over drinking of water. This is because the cells of the human body begin to shut down once the human body becomes dehydrated, and it is only through a slow process of re-hydration that the cells of the body can recover and begin to function properly again.
More recently, personal hydration systems have been developed that offer a number of advantages over water bottles and canteens, including improved fluid delivery capabilities and convenience. These systems frequently include either a semi-rigid or flexible bag-like fluid reservoir that may be carried in a pack on the user's back or waist. These systems permit a user to drink more frequently while engaged in a variety of sporting, recreational, and work related activities because a long flexible drink tube is connected to the reservoir through an exit port at one end and terminates in a mouthpiece with a bite valve at the other end. The tube is long enough to allow the mouthpiece to be carried in the user's mouth to enable the user to draw water from the reservoir at will. Examples of personal hydration systems of this type and mouthpieces therefor are disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,727,714, 5,060,833, 5,085,349, 6,070,767, and 7,490,740.
Although personal hydration systems have generally provided a significant advance over traditional water bottles, they continue to suffer from a number of shortcomings. One shortcoming, for example, has been that the components of the hydration system downstream from the fluid reservoir have historically been either permanently secured together or secured together via a tight friction fit that tends to be difficult to establish or release. Although these types of connection structures provide suitable fluid-tight seals, they are not optimal in terms of both providing a fluid-tight seal and permitting components downstream of the reservoir to be quickly and repeatedly interchanged by a user. Moreover, these structures are not designed to permit downstream components to be easily and safely disconnected in the event of an emergency or in the event of something snagging one of the downstream components.
Mechanical quick connects, such as those described in U.S. Pat. No. 7,073,688, have been employed to allow downstream components in a personal hydration system to be quickly and repeatedly connected and disconnected. Mechanical quick connects also allow a user to quickly and easily interchange downstream components. As a result, mechanical quick connects are quite useful in many applications. One drawback of mechanical quick connects, however, is that once they are connected they can only be disconnected by pressing a release button. This can pose a significant safety problem in a number of sporting and work related activities. Furthermore, depending on the location of the mechanical quick connect in the fluid delivery system, two hands may actually be required to connect and/or disconnect the male and female members of the quick connect provided on the mating components of the hydration system. And certainly mechanical quick connects are not designed to permit users to attach or detach components with a single hand, or without the benefit of the user visualizing the male and female members of mechanical quick connect that are to be connected or disconnected.
Another shortcoming in these conventional systems is that the drink tube is left dangling. As a result, when the user releases the mouthpiece located on the terminal end of the of the drink tube from the user's mouth, the tube will fall away from the user's mouth and require the user to retrieve the drink tube and put the mouthpiece back in his or her mouth the next time another drink is desired. However, it may not be practical (or even safe) for a user to manipulate the drink tube in this manner during certain activities, for example when the user is traveling at a high rate of speed, such as on a bicycle, in a race car or on a motorcycle. Yet, it is also not always practical, or even desirable, for the user to keep the mouthpiece in his or her mouth at all times.
Headgear has been developed to facilitate hands-free hydration. The headgear is designed to permit the bite-valve of the drink tube to be adjustably located in front of the user's mouth. A variety of different types of headgear of this type are described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,283,344 to Bradley, which is hereby incorporated by reference. The various types of headgear described in the Bradley patent are all designed to be worn on the user's head such that an intermediate portion of the drink tube is located vertically above the user's mouth. The configuration employed in the Bradley patent is designed so that when the user is riding a bicycle or the like, fluids can be provided from a back mounted hydration pack to the user via gravity or a siphon, thereby reducing the amount the user has to suck on the bite valve, which is located on the terminal end of the drink tube, to draw fluids from the hydration reservoir to the user's mouth. All of the connectors used in the headgear described in Bradley, however, are of the friction fit variety. As a result, the portion of the drink tube that extends from the headgear to the fluid reservoir are subject to being snagged by objects in the environment in which the user is performing his or her activity. For example, a tree limb could snag the drink tube as a bicyclist is riding past a tree. If the drink tube is snagged in this manner, the headgear can potentially be ripped from the user's head and/or the user can be injured.
Another shortcoming of personal hydration systems has been providing a reservoir that can be readily accessed by the user for cleaning. To address this problem, hydration bags have been developed that include an opening defined by generally opposed ribs that are sealed by compressing the ribs together, similar to how a ZIPLOCK™ brand storage bag is sealed. Another solution to this problem has been the use of a roll top, or folded top, which is closed by rolling or folding the top, much like a dry bag used in camping. Another proposed solution to this problem is described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,820,780, in which a personal hydration system is described that includes a hydration bag with a relatively large diameter fill port and mating cap. One disadvantage of each of these approaches is that because the hydration bags are extremely flexible, it is often awkward or difficult for a user to fill the hydration bag without spilling fluids. It is also difficult for the user to fill the bags to their maximum capacity. Further, to fill a hydration bag, the bag must be removed from its pack, and once filled the bag must then be stuffed back in the pack, which can be challenging.
Another shortcoming of the personal hydration systems of the type described above is that the user has to suck water up the lengthy drink tube. The process is much like drinking through a straw. The user bites on the bite-valve included in the mouthpiece and then sucks on the mouthpiece to draw water or other fluid from the fluid reservoir into the user's mouth. The rate at which fluid from the reservoir is delivered to the user will depend on the amount of suction, as well as the amount of resistance to fluid flow within the system. And while the process is fairly straight-forward and simple, in certain situations it can be taxing for the user. This can occur, for example, when the user is already exerting significant energy and breathing hard due to exercise or where the user is perhaps more elderly and/or frail. This is because these systems also require the user to hold their breath while they suck fluids from the reservoir to drink, which is not always practical, such as when the user is already breathing hard and short of breath.
Hydration systems have been provided with powered pumps or pressurizing mechanisms so that a user does not have to suck fluids from the reservoir or hold their breath while drinking. Hydration systems provided with these features have thus far still suffered from many of the other drawbacks discussed above. In addition, pump housings have not been designed to readily connect and disconnect to the outlet ports of the hydration bags. This can, for example, make it difficult to connect and disconnect the pump at will from the hydration bag. This can also result in the weight of the pump, power source, and housing being distributed in a manner that may not be ideal.
The actuation switch in systems including a pump also have room for improvement. For example, the actuation switch in some of these systems has been located on the fluid delivery tube itself, which requires a user to reach his hand to the tube to actually activate the pump. Depending on activity in which the user is engaged, this may or may not be practical. Actuation switches have also been located on handlebars of a bicycle, but this approach has required the user to remove one of his or her hands from the handlebar grips to activate the switch, which, depending on the conditions of the bike path and speed of the bike, may not be safe. U.S. Patent Publication 2004/0045980 A1 to Duncan Robins describes a personal hydration system in which a mouth activated switch is provided in the mouthpiece of the drink tube. The design described in the Robins publication, however, requires the user to keep the mouthpiece in his or her mouth during use, which is not always practical or even desirable during many activities. Alternatively, as with known suction-type (or pump-less) hydration systems discussed above, the user can allow the drink tube to dangle free between drinks and then grab the drink tube and place the mouthpiece in his or her mouth when a drink is desired. But, just as with conventional suction-type hydration systems, it may not always be practical (or even safe) for a user to manipulate the drink tube in this manner.
Further, as the use of liquids with dissolved salts and/or sugars increases in hydration systems (both pumped and pump-less), the cleanliness of hydration systems and their component parts will become a greater concern to users. This is because the use of sugars in a hydration system can lead to contamination due to trapped residue and/or accumulation of bacteria, particularly in the area of a bite-valve, mouthpiece, and/or pump. Thus, hydration systems and/or components thereof that are readily cleanable are desirable.